Cop Harasses Photographer, Steals His Cellphone Battery And Attempts To Get YouTube To Pull The Incriminating Video

from the The-War-on-Cameras-continues-unabated dept

Recording a police officer in public isn't a crime. Well, it isn't anything a cop can cite or arrest you for doing. Instead, a bunch of vague infractions are listed in hopes that something will stick and deter future citizen recordings.

A New York City cop beat up and arrested a man for video recording him inside a subway station from 30 feet away Saturday night, walking up to him and getting in his face all while claiming the man was invading his personal space…

Thomas also obtained footage from another man who had recorded Rojas with his knees on Thomas’ back as he lay face down on the sidewalk just outside the sub station, seconds after Rojas had bashed his face into the pavement, busting his lip.

The injury was so bad that they had to transport him to the hospital twice during his 24-hour incarceration where doctors described him as a victim of assault.

As if the impromptu "use of force" wasn't enough, Thomas was also charged with the following:

Note that Rojas had to come over to where Thomas was filming (nearly 30 feet away) in order to be "obstructed." Note also that Thomas was filming in a public location, where it's almost impossible to "trespass." And note that the de rigueur "resisting arrest" is included only because Thomas didn't apply his own handcuffs, hoof it to the nearest cruiser and slide into the back seat.

Here's the description of "resisting arrest" from the arrest report itself:

Deponent further states that, at the above time and place, defendant did resist a lawful arrest by crossing defendants' arm across defendant's chest while deponent attempted to place defendant in handcuffs.

But it gets worse. Officer Rojas apparently grabbed Thomas' cellphone and either deleted the footage or removed the battery in order to prevent Thomas from filming any further. (PINAC's account of this event mentions "deletion" and Thomas using Recuva to recover the deleted footage, but the description of events only says Rojas took Thomas' phone and pocketed the battery.) Thomas then took out his backup phone (a Blackberry) and tried to continue filming, at which point Rojas "knocked the phone out of [Thomas'] hand" and slammed him to the ground.

Either way, Rojas made an effort to prevent any further filming. The incident report filed by Rojas makes no mention of the fact that he seized a cellphone and either deleted footage or seized the phone's battery. He also undermines the charge of trespassing by noting the area where Thomas was filming was public, which is contrary to Rojas' filmed assertion that Thomas was "violating" his "personal space."

Apparently, Rojas wasn't done with feeling "violated" by Thomas' filming. According to PINAC's Facebook page, Officer Rojas filed a privacy complaint asking YouTube to remove the video. YouTube, fortunately, turned his request down, which means that Rojas will now have to deal with a recording that contradicts (or severely weakens) many of the claims he made in his sworn statements (the arrest report).

As PINAC and Thomas point out, the obstruction charge is especially baseless, given Thomas' distance from the officers (approx. 30 feet compared to the report's "close proximity") and the fact that the entire situation appears to be completely under control by the time Officer Rojas arrives. Rojas seems to be the only cop there who viewed Thomas and his camera as somehow interfering with police business. Rojas then abandons his "partner" -- who is presumably dealing with an actual criminal -- solely to harass someone with a camera. If nothing else, Rojas has problems with prioritizing, giving the non-criminal (and protected) act of filming precedence over an actual law enforcement work.

Officer Rojas had multiple paths to take when he noticed a citizen filming him performing his public duties in a public place. Unfortunately, he decided to take the well-worn path and violate the rights of the photographer. And like many others, this decision has done nothing more than heap more negative publicity on the police department and the officer involved. The correct response -- ignore it and do your job -- still remains largely untested.

Re: Re: reply to Ninja

It doesn't have to be a valid DMCA notice to temporarily take down a video.

YouTube's process is pretty much automated and if a video receives a DMCA notice, the video is blocked until the uploader challenges the claim (up to three claims at a time). From there it would be up to Thomas to file a civil suit against Rojas.

Challenging a DMCA claim on YouTube can take a number of weeks to process. This leaves the video offline for a long period of time.

Re: Re: Re: Reply to Liz

"It doesn't have to be a valid DMCA notice to temporarily take down a video."

No, but to send an INVALID DMCA take-down notice, the cop would have had to commit PERJURY. The DMCA requires that ALL take-down notices be filed under penalty of perjury, and in fact the first line of a typical valid DMCA notice begins, "I, the undersigned, certify UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY that the information in this notification is accurate and that I am authorized to act on behalf of [the copyright owner]."

Would YOU commit an obvious, easy-to-prove perjury, just so you could get a troublesome video taken down for a short period? I wouldn't. And I don't expect the cop would, either.

Besides, you're just plain wrong about a DMCA notice being sufficient to keep a video off YouTube for "a number of weeks." It's NOT. A separate DMCA notice has to be sent EACH time a video is uploaded to YouTube. So as long as the photographer has enough separate e-mail addresses -- or enough friends with e-mail addresses -- all he has to do is keep uploading the same video faster than the cop can post new DMCA take-down notices.

That's why record and film companies HATE the DMCA take-down process; it's because they can't possibly post take-down notices faster than the infringers can upload their videos. They even have a name for this process. They derisively call it "whack a mole".

Meanwhile, keep in mind that EACH time the cop posts a new DMCA take-down notice, it's a NEW perjury charge against him. So it wouldn't take long for him to commit enough acts of perjury to be facing decades in prison. Enough to make him think twice about posting perjurious DMCA notices, I would think.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Reply to Liz

Would YOU commit an obvious, easy-to-prove perjury, just so you could get a troublesome video taken down for a short period? I wouldn't. And I don't expect the cop would, either.

The perjury clause? Completely toothless, I'm not aware of any cases where it was actually enforced, since 'Well I accidentally made a mistake in my claim' seems to be a court approved dodge whenever it comes up, and enforced against a cop? Not a chance.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Reply to That One Guy

So, are you confessing that, yes, in fact, you WOULD commit any obvious, easy-to-prove perjury, just so you could get this troublesome video taken down for a short period?

Before you answer, please keep in mind that this is NOT the typical DMCA takedown "mistake", where the takedown party can plausibly claim that he mistakenly thought the video was his own, or mistakenly thought that the use hadn't been authorized by an employees, or mistakenly thought the use wasn't allowed as a "fair use." In those cases, the perjury law IS toothless (as you claim), because of the difficulty, if not impossibility, of proving perjury.

But in THIS a case, the perjury charge would be open-and-shut. I.e., he cop would be telling a blatant lie about owning the copyright in the video, when he absolutely KNOWS that that claim is false, and it would be easy to prove that he knew it was false.

So, are you claiming that you WOULD tell such a blatant lie in a DMCA takedown notice, even if you knew it would be easy to prove that you're committing perjury?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Reply to That One Guy

The issue isn't what TOG would or wouldn't do. The issue what the cop would or wouldn't do. This cop is so ethically challenged that I expect he'd do anything he could get away with -- and he is guaranteed to get away with this perjury.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Reply to John Fenderson

But we ALREADY KNOW "what the cop [has or hasn't done]."

Namely, he HASN'T sent a DMCA takedown notice.

And since I AGREE with you that "[t]his cop is so ethically challenged that...he'd do anything he could get away with," that means the ONLY POSSIBLE REASON he HASN'T yet sent a DMCA takedown notice is that...are you ready for this?...he thinks he wouldn't get away with it.

And WHY do you suppose he thinks he wouldn't get away with it?

Because he knows that in order for him to send a DMCA takedown notice, he'd have to commit a blatant perjury, which perjury would be incredibly easy to prove, and against which he'd have NO defense whatsoever.

So even assuming that no one else has ever been charged with perjury for sending an erroneous DMCA notice, this cop doesn't want to be the first. And he knows he COULD very well be the first, since unlike all the other people who were never charged because their perjuries were hard to prove, HIS perjury is easy to prove, indeed, an open-and-shut case.

Furthermore, even if he weren't ever charged with perjury, the fact that he committed an obvious perjury could have OTHER adverse consequences for him. For example, even without a perjury conviction, his obvious commission of perjury might subject him to discipline in his job, or might cause New York City judges to automatically discredit his testimony in every criminal case in which he has to testify. (FYI, as a former assistant DA, I can tell you that judges do, in fact, tend to disbelieve cops whose credibility has been hammered in the press.) So even if he's never charged with perjury, it is RATIONAL for him to fear the consequences if he publicly commits a blatant perjury.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Reply to Anonymous coward

Your reading comprehension sucks. I never claimed that anyone has ever been charged with perjury for sending a false DMCA takedown notice. Indeed, I expressly assumed that NO ONE has ever been so charged.

If my comments strike you as an "invalid rant", try rebutting them with logic and accurate facts instead of bullshit.

Re: Makes you wonder

Given the trends of violence, overreach, and just plain callous behavior by police officers across the country as of late, I consider it safe to assume that cops routinely consider themselves above the law — up to and including murder.

Public photography probably doesn’t even register on their radar. Since few police departments actually punish cops for this sort of behavior, they likely feel they can get away with it easier than murder or rape or even petty theft — especially if they can wipe the evidence.

I'd love to know how many police officers working the streets today had problems with bullies in their childhood. The behavior of cops these days makes me think they want the power that comes with the badge in order to make up for not having the power to stand up for themselves in their youth (i.e. the bullied become the bullies).

Re: Re: Makes you wonder

That is the problem; there is little problem. If NYC fires Rojas, retracts his law enforcement license, and arrest him for assault and battery, try, and convict him, then the rest of the department will get the message. Bt, until strong messages are delivered, then the problem will continue.

Re: Makes you wonder

Interracial relationships, being a christian, being an atheist, being a democrat, trying to vote. There are many situations where corrupt officers like this violate Americans constitutionally protected rights using their badge to send people into fear of race mixing and religious choices. This officer needs to be locked up away from society to help good officers and innocent citizens alike.

Re: Makes you wonder

Well, yes.

What distinguishes authoritarian governments from democratic ones is this: the law in authoritarian societies is whatever those in authority say it is.

We're in great danger in our own nation from this authoritarian trend. It's not just police departments, it's illegal actions taken by government behind the veil of secrecy, too. Assassinations, rendition, hacking and malware attacks, property seizures without due process, torture, refusal to prosecute torturers, refusal to prosecute Wall Street criminals, persecution of minorities, illegal spying which violates the 4th Amendment, on and on and on. The lawlessness not getting better, it's getting worse.

The brave young man who recorded this confrontation represents the only real hope we have, I think. Our democracy is no longer functioning; both parties are advancing the authoritarian security state and answerable only to the wealthy elites. All that's left is to expose as much malfeasance as we can.

NSA is able to compile dossiers based on our commenting at web sites and our e-mails, too, and they share with FBI and other agencies. Watch lists and targeted spying is the least we can expect. Even expressing nonviolent opinions is dangerous in America's security state.

Yeah, as long as 'cops' like that face absolutely zero real penalties for their actions('Oh no, I got a day of unpaid leave for roughing up a bystander! I might even get a stern warning to not get caught doing so again!'), it's hardly surprising that they see no problem doing so, and will continue.

Put some real penalties in place, more than the pathetic slap on the wrist crap they face now, and then they might actually care about respecting people's rights.

Could photographer have avoided arrest by not cursing?

Obviously the arrest cannot be justified, given that the officer had to deliberately walk a significant distance over to confront the photographer, who was doing nothing other than recording - not even commenting on the situation. I hope he is disciplined and instructed in proper protocol, and that the photographer is compensated for the unlawful arrest and his injuries.

I always watch these types of videos with interest, and try to imagine what I would do if I were in the situation. I can't help but wonder if by simply not cursing at the officer, the photographer could have avoided antagonizing him, and thus avoided arrest.

Doesn't by any means make what the officer did justified in any way. But it seems like in many confrontations, the officer causes the conflict by unlawfully telling a person to stop recording, or trying to take their camera or delete the photos/recordings. But we didn't hear any of that in this video before the arrest.

Re: Re: Could photographer have avoided arrest by not cursing?

Re: Could photographer have avoided arrest by not cursing?

"I can't help but wonder if by simply not cursing at the officer, the photographer could have avoided antagonizing him, and thus avoided arrest."

Perhaps so, but doesn't that seem like a rather huge problem to you? It means that cops are using their arrest powers not because they're addressing a crime, but because they're pissed off. To me, that sort of thing should be grounds for immediate firing.

However, in general, your point is correct: in any situation where you're dealing with other people -- not just cops -- if you're swearing and generally acting in a dickish way,you're going to be treated worse.

Re: Re: Could photographer have avoided arrest by not cursing?

I don't think the cursing or had there been a lack of it would have made a difference. Rojas (he doesn't deserve the title of Officer) was looking to provoke a confrontation. The way he walked up to Mr. Thomas and stuck his camera in Mr. Thomas's face was an attempt at intimidation. Rojas wasn't going to back off until he intimidated or provoked Mr. Thomas in to something he thought he could justify. Rojas was looking for a fight and when he didn't get one he manufactured one.

However; I do wish Mr. Thomas had refrained from cursing so no one could use it as an excuse for Rojas behaviour.

Re: Could photographer have avoided arrest by not cursing?

Freedom of speech trumps the officer's thin skin and fragile ego.

Courts have repeatedly ruled that profanity and rude gestures at cops are protected speech. After all, no one ever needed heavy legal protections for the right to say and do exactly what people want to hear and see.

Re: Could photographer have avoided arrest by not cursing?

I'd wonder the same thing myself if it wasn't for one fact. Mr. Thomas doesn't start cussing until after he tries to de-escalate the situation by moving away from Rojas. Rojas follows and continues harassing Mr. Thomas. That's when Mr. Thomas starts cussing. If Rojas hadn't followed, the situation wouldn't have continued escalating.

On this one, I agree with the police officer

Although the subject was injured, which was probably not the intention, the way the person acted, from the very begining, is similar to harassment. The police officer might not have had the best of idea by getting involved in it's game, but the simple fact the person takes the time to show the distance between him and the officers, way before the altercation, clearly show, in my mind, he had little interest in what was happening, but instead, hoped to prove something different. He challenged the police officer to arrest him and was demeaning from the very start. There's a middle ground, in each situation and in this case, the responsability seems to fall on both.

Re: On this one, I agree with the police officer

Anonymous Coward wrote:

the simple fact the person takes the time to show the distance between him and the officers, way before the altercation, clearly show, in my mind, he had little interest in what was happening, but instead, hoped to prove something different.

That the photographer was expecting the police to violate his constitutional rights does not justify their doing so.

He challenged the police officer to arrest him and was demeaning from the very start.

Being demeaning or impolite is not a crime, nor should it be.

There's a middle ground, in each situation and in this case, the responsability seems to fall on both.

No. Police are given tremendous authority over the public, and because of this they do have a higher burden of responsibility. ("With great power...") It is their job to exercise a sufficient level of self-control not to respond to verbal provocation with violence.

Re: On this one, I agree with the police officer

Cool victim blaming, bro.

Police officers have higher standards to live up to when working their jobs. An officer who becomes easily provoked into violence by harsh language alone does not live up to those standards — and, in a perfect world, would end up tossed out of their job for such behavior.

Rojas has no one to blame for his bad behavior but himself since Rojas alone chose his reaction to the photographer’s non-violent actions and harsh language.

Re: On this one, I agree with the police officer

IMHO, two people were looking for a confrontation there. The officer was clearly in the wrong, the photographer in the right - but, as the phrase goes, he didn't have to be a dick about it. Oh, he has the right to mouth off, and theoretically the officer can't do anything about it; but doing so doesn't help other people who wish to film in public.

I'm a former professional photographer. To this day, I carry some fairly elaborate equipment, and probably have someone confront me two of three times a year. I keep laminated copies of local laws regarding photography in public spaces on my person, and helpfully read them to people as necessary. It's much easier to educate than to get out of jail. I've only been arrested once, and it didn't end well for the officer. Probably helps that I'm polite, co-operative, and, well, professional. You get what you give.

Re: Re: On this one, I agree with the police officer

i agree that being polite will most likely provoke a different reaction. The reason i do not agree with you on this is because this type of abuse has been going on for a very long time and sometimes civil disobedience is needed to make changes. Avoiding the situation for yourself is not going to garner enough attention to the abuses to change the institutional behavior of the police throughout this country.

Re: Re: Re: On this one, I agree with the police officer

Agree. People often say that they don't like the way things are or that they wish something were different. Yet, they continue to live their lives as they always had and point fingers at how other people should act differently. The bottom line is that we make the world we live in. If the majority of people held officers, politicians and the institutions accountable then things may be different. There are a lot more people than there are people in positions of power. Take time out of your day to film police encounters, demand your rights be upheld and require the courts to prove everything in the instance of an infraction or arrest. Sue police officers that break the law and put liens against their property. Make it clear to your local politicians that you are watching them and know what laws they are breaking. Put the fucking fear of the people back in the government. Once you are no longer afraid of dying, standing up for what is right is easy.

Re: Re: On this one, I agree with the police officer

Re: On this one, I agree with the police officer

Which is illegal, being an asshole or destroying evidence, filing false charges and assault? Why should someone behaving within the law be expected to be assaulted and detained by the police? Even if he did expect it, why would that make the cop in the right for breaking the law?

Re: On this one, I agree with the police officer

You must be trolling. How can you watch that video and then say "I agree with the police officer"?

The officer:Initiated contact by walking 30 feet Shoved his camera into someone's face and blocked their cameraKept doing that for about 30 seconds without saying anythingRefused to back off of the person when askedRefused to state his name and badge number when askedActed childishly in generalStole the guy's cell phone batteriesDestroyed evidenceSlammed the person into the groundCharged the person with trespassing in a public subway stationLied in the report about the person being in "close proximity"

The filmer:Filmed peacefully for several minutesWas 30 feet awayDid not attempt to approach Did not say anything until contact was initiated by the officer, and even then waited about 30 secondsAsserted his right to be thereSwore at the officer

This is nowhere near a close call. You can say the filmer shouldn't swear, but that's the ONLY thing he did wrong, and that's nowhere near the same level as what the officer did.

The officer is probably guilty of assault, battery, theft, destruction of evidence, false arrest, perjury and/or filing a false report, and probably other things I can't think of. Not to mention all sorts of conduct violations. The guy is maybe guilty of disorderly conduct for swearing. And maybe resisting arrest if you can take the word of the officer, who already lied in his report.

Re: Re: Re: On this one, I agree with the police officer

Nah, it wouldn't meet the NY definition of kidnapping. It meets unlawful imprisonment, though. "... to restrict a person`s movements intentionally and unlawfully in such manner as to interfere substantially with his liberty by moving him from one place to another, or by confining him either in the place where the restriction commences or in a place to which he has been moved, without consent and with knowledge that the restriction is unlawful."

For kidnapping you'd need that plus an intent to prevent his liberation, for example by hiding him in a place where he's unlikely to be found. The jail doesn't count.

Re: On this one, I agree with the police officer

Agree with the PO? Really? If you're the guy with the power to detain and arrest, your poop had better not stink. The cop was way over the line in intimidating, detaining, injuring, and arresting the photog. Your "middle ground" POV, placates those who would remove personal liability from unionized thugs who beat up on people who are legally prevented from protecting themselves with force.

Re: On this one, I agree with the police officer

That's just insane, AC.

It's *legal* to photograph or take videos of the police in public spaces. The photographer *in no way* interfered with the arrest he was photographing. The photographer was within his rights to ask the officer to move out of his face. And it's not a crime to say 'fuck.'

The photographer baited the officer, sure. That's not illegal either - if he stays within the law. He did. The correct and legal response by the officer was to go about his legal business.

Thirty days in jail sounds about right - for the cop, that is. What will happen instead is that the taxpayers will give the photographer some money (after a bunch of lawyers take their cut) and nothing will happen to the cop.

Re:

I wouldn't say "nothing". I he will a negative mark on his record and in all likelihood it MAY prevent him from ever being promoted.At least that is what would happen to an officer who did that in our department....

Re: Re:

Nothing personal, but really, a "negative mark on his record"? BFD. If he hadn't been a cop, what he did would constitute assault & battery, which depending on jurisdiction may or may not be a felony and would certainly have landed him in jail.

The proper punishment is firing and criminal charges, not a "negative mark on his record" that would keep him from "ever getting promoted".

Re: Re:

Re: Re:

boo-hoo.

If I did what this cop did, I'd be in jail for assault. That's what this guy deserves: actual criminal charges, 5-10 years in prison as a violent offender, and a criminal record that makes it hell for him to get *any* job. in other words, the exact same punishment as the "little people" get.

Instead, he gets to stay on the force and rack up meaningless "black marks".

a) the correctly authorised person(s) need to make it perfectly clear to all LEO and others in Law Enforcement or Security Forces that filming officers IS NOT AN OFFENCE, STOPPING THOSE DOING THE FILMING IS and the courts need to show this in it's rulings of this type of case.

b) the correctly authorised person(s) need to get hold of how LEO behave in NY and 'emphasize' how they are employed to protect the public, not to harass or incriminate them. a good place to start would be with the head honcho of the Police Dept and the City.

this behavior is absolutely disgraceful! unfortunately, given how the whole of the USA is deteriorating into one giant Police State, it's not unexpected or surprising!

Re:

Telling them that it's not a crime to record cops doesn't do anything to solve the problem, unless there's penalties put in place and enforced to deal with those cops that continue to harass and arrest those that record them, stuff like this will just continue happening.

"The correct response -- ignore it and do your job -- still remains largely untested."

Not true, there is a video going around of a Toronto cop who was filmed tackling a woman to the ground in order to arrest her. The officer actually said to the recorders "Go ahead and record me, take it all in." while the gathering crowed told him to lay off, "she's just a girl!"

After she was secured in the police vehicle the officer actually spoke to the filmers and said that she was resisting arrest, and calmly explained the actions he took.

Re:

This poor cop (Rojas) might have to take a paid vacation because of this terrorist's (Thomas) actions.

-or-

This poor citizen (Thomas) had to take a trip to the hospital because of this terrorist's (Rojas) actions.

There is the story from the perspectives of each of the characters. Now, if you had not read the above article and had no knowledge of the situation whatsoever, which would you consider to be the right and just perspective?

"Domestic terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:- Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;- Appear intended: -- (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; - Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.

Or you could just call him a bully.... but that is just a nice word for "local non-political terrorist".

Re: Re: Re:

In the US, all of the various definitions of "terrorism" include wording to the effect that the violence must be with the intention of altering the actions of the state. There is no such thing as a "non-political terrorist."

Bullying isn't terrorism. Terrorism is a lot more than just terrorizing people.

Re: Is the NYPD especially corrupt

Little of both, but mostly the first.

When you've got an already corrupt police force, that believes themselves to be completely above the law(and for all intents and purposes is, since none of those who are supposed to keep them in check will do so), and have a mayor that not only agrees with them but encourages it in office for years... yeah, it's hardly a surprise that you'd end up with a city police force almost completely comprised of the kinds of cops that make the rest of them look bad.

That video is ridiculous. Walking 30 feet to someone and then telling them that they're in your personal space warrants discipline. But the destruction of evidence warrants criminal charges.

And the officer is just so *childish*. He seems someone recording, so he takes out his own camera to record him? Filmer: "You're violating my personal space." Officer: "You're violating my personal space too." Filmer: "What's your name and shield number?" Officer: "What's YOUR name?" Filmer: "You pick and choose what parts of the patrol guide you read?" Officer: "I'm not picking, you picking."

stare-downs and power games

The two were playing power games. The scene of a tough-talking, obscenity-spewing, inner-city street punk standing his ground while refusing to bow down to authority is hardly the most sympathy-inducing example of police misconduct.

I suspect that the photographer probably did something to goad the cop to walk over and get in his face like that, and the way he documented the distance ahead of time, it seemed like he was preparing himself for a confrontation (which he promptly got).

Whenever dealing with aggressive cops, it's important to at least try to defuse the situation whenever possible, not escalate it. A little politeness can go a long way. But if the goal is to provoke police overreaction and violent arrest by pushing the line, then at least have a second person unobtrusively filming your "Rodney King Moment."

Re: Re: Re: stare-downs and power games

But it's not a crime to be untactful. To legally detain and arrest, the officer must witness a crime or have reasonable suspicion that a crime was committed.

Photographing police in a public space from a respectful distance is not a crime. Swearing is not a crime. Asking an officer who is exceeding this authority illegally to 'get out of my face' is not a crime. At no point did the photographer commit any crime at all.

The officer, on the other hand, far exceeded his authority. He harassed a citizen without any evidence whatsoever of criminal conduct, assaulted him, attempted to destroy evidence, and pressed false charges against him.

Re: stare-downs and power games

Re: Re: stare-downs and power games

That is precisely my reaction.

My hat's off to people who record the police in public spaces, knowing full well that some of them are going to act illegally as a consequence. It's a public service. Let's find out which cops are law-abiding and which are not, and let the public know.

Re: stare-downs and power games

The police are supposed to be professionals, they are not supposed to go off half-cocked because someone stared at them with a questionable look on their face. That's what 12 year olds do, not adults, and certainly not a well-trained policeman.

We'll soon find out what type of regime de Blasio/Bratten are planning on running. So far, any memorandum denoting change from the Fascist Bloomberg Regime don't seem to have trickled down to the troops - or maybe this one was on vacation.